to think that a Europe wide ban on pornography is nuts?

[ophelia275]

The European parliament is seeking a ban on all pornography across Europe.

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/european-parliament-votes-on-call-for-porn-ban-8527229.html

I don't think all pornography is bad and I think it serves as an outlet for both women and men to release anger/sexual frustration etc. I don't think a ban would be a good idea because there would always be ways around it and suppressing pornography would just result in more violence and sexual aggression imo. I also don't think there is anything inherently wrong in looking at naked photos of the opposite sex and satisfies a natural urge.

Sometimes I wonder what the EU is going to try and ban next on the grounds of protecting our rights?

Murder indeed, the agenda is being pushed, in the usual uninspiring and rambling ways. Not even a good debate - just pro-porn repetition, not even discussing advertising or how the EU will implement this.

Just the usual:

Porn is age-old and harmless
But don't let your kids see it - that's your job as mothers
It empowers women and lets them get PhDs
But for Christ's sake make sure your kids don't see it
It's the end of free speech as we know it
Haven't you got better things to worry about?
Jesus you really wanna make sure you don't let your kids see it

RedTooth

I agree that that is the dabet we should be having. About advertising.

sorry debate

I have no parental controls on my computer, just google safe search. I've just tried "beaver" and got no porn at all.

Parental controls will make a difference, but supervision is still the absolute best solution.

In terms of the most foolproof parental controls, especially for very young children, you are better off with something that white lists rather than black lists sites. So you tell it which sites you want your child to access and the rest of the internet is blocked to them.

I think what American Apparel have got up to is interesting.

They've had a couple of campaigns to deliberately outrage. They were banned by the ASA - therefore we are were enforcing the issue (but they still gained from it and the additional publicity that the ban created). Note: these campaigns did not contain nudity.

The images they used were provocative and sexualised, but not necessarily what you would define as pornographic. So the definition of 'pornography' is important here and why it worries me when we are talking about legal recourse and criminal prosecution.

(Btw I think the ASA were right to ban the ads in this particular case).

linky - apologises it DM, but it does give a point of debate on this

A ban on viewing or possessing porn would be fairly straightforward as an extension of the current ban on possessing extreme pornographic images. If these laws were enforced properly, there would be a significant deterrent effect.

We are seeing a shift in behaviour on twitter from a position where people felt they could say anything because "you can't regulate the internet" to a realisation that you can actually regulate a very significant part of it quite easily. Cases like the Ched Evans tweets and Sally Bercow will have an impact on a large number of people even though they won't completely stop people using twitter in ways that breach the laws.

There are no laws that can be enforced perfectly to stop all criminal behaviour. That's why we need the police and the courts. That doesn't mean we give up on legislation.

No we enforce the laws we currently have, rather than creating new ones IMHO.

I've just googled "beavers", there's nothing inappropriate in the first five pages of results. That's on an ipad with no parental controls.

OldLady
I'm very glad to hear it . Maybe we don't need controls then.

Flora

In many places it is illegal to make porn films, but its not illegal to watch them. The internet is a good place to find porn but its not the only place. How could this be policed? What about the rights of those who like porn, like me and many others.

more do you mean how could the not internet be policed? In the usual way.

I don't believe you have a "right" to watch porn.

A search for "tits" or "boobs" gives less benign results. And those are the kind of words dc use to search.

Redtooth,

Re anti terror laws, I assume you are thinking of the IceSave episode. IceSave's assets were frozen under legislation which although ostensibly about terrorism gave the Government specific powers to freeze assets.

It wasn't a misuse of anti-terror legislation. It was a straight-forward use of legislation everyone thought was about terrorism but wasn't.

I don't see a comparable problem here, unless every website is going to be defined as 'media' in the unlikely event that national parliaments actually listen to this latest piece of gesture politics from Strasbourg.

FloraFox.

I don't just mean the internet, but yes the internet as well. Are the police going to knock on our doors searching for films. I know people who have cupboards full of the stuff.
Everyone over the age of consent has a right to watch it, there is no current law prohibiting it.

I wasn't thinking about IceSave actually. They've been used in numerous different ways it was never intended.

Sorry I must add I'm not some sort of porn junkie. I just believe in peoples right to do what they like in their own homes, if they are not hurting anyone. I am not a regular viewer, but have had my moments like many others.

I know there are many sick people about but not everybody is like this and into the really horrible stuff.

Florafox,

I think most problems can be dealt with under existing legislation. There is already too of it to the extent that people have to spend more energy making sure what they do is legal than actually doing it.

In the last 15 years governments have introduced legislation to Parliament simply so they can say they've done something.

It is very instructive to go into a law library and see how much more legislation is passed power year now than in, say, 1990. Has society got so much more complicated? I doubt it.

Redtooth,

OK then- what examples can you give?

more - I'm not sure I get your point

Everyone over the age of consent has a right to watch it, there is no current law prohibiting it.

If the law was changed to ban watching pornography, you would no longer have a right to watch it.

As for enforcement, it would be no different from any other possession crime. The police do not randomly search your home for e.g. weapons or guns. The fact that possession of certain weapons and guns certainly does have a significant deterrent effect.

Hillbilly - that argument gets trotted out any time something legal becomes illegal.

The fact that possession of certain weapons and guns is illegal certainly does have a significant deterrent effect.

I support and finance Anonymous. They are a bulwark for freedom for all of us.

Photography. People being clamped down on for taking pictures in public places. Numerous examples.

Broad anti-terrorism powers of stop and search have been used to harass and stifle peaceful protesters.

Walter Wolfgang was detained using them at the Labour Conference in 2005 after he was ejected for heckling Jack Straw.

I could go on.

Search 'Section 44' on a newspaper website and you'll come up with a few.

Flora I realise if the law was changed etc.

But as it stands there is no law against it and you said up thread you weren't sure I had a right to watch porn, well I clearly do and so does anybody else over the age of consent.